The American people have been given no concrete evidence that Saddam
has done anything but torture and kill the Iraqi people, since his
attack against Kuwait. This in itself is bad, but there are worse in
the world. And, America has never waged an aggressive war, as it is
planning to do against Saddam. In fact, are not the terrorists
considered evil because they attacked without provocation? Was not
Japan vilified for attacking Pearl Harbor without provocation? Why
won't the same logic apply to the United States if and when it attacks
Iraq?

Answer, it will. But, why is George W. intent on attacking Iraq. By
the way, W's is talking about finding diplomatic solutions and using
every option available to "solve" an internal Iraqi problem at the
same time war preparations are in full swing. See the
August 6 New York Times story if you don't believe me.

At first, I thought W picked Saddam for the second enemy of the War
With Terror because Saddam had already been vilified when daddy Bush
attacked him in the Gulf War. Evil guys are easier to prop up as
villains of the day. Indeed, Saddam's reputation may be a factor in
choosing Saddam as the next enemy. However, I do not believe it to be
the most significant factor.

Next, I thought maybe W picked Saddam to finish his father's war. But,
then I remembered that daddy Bush had told Saddam a week before
Saddam's brutal invasion of Kuwait that the United States would not
defend Kuwait if Iraq attacked it. Then, I remembered hearing daddy
Bush say, in a post presidential interview, that one of the main
reasons he decided to wage the Gulf War was to build an international
coalition to forge his New World Order. If you'll remember, think-
tanks and diplomats were looking for a new global paradigm to explain
foreign affairs since the Cold War ended. Daddy Bush suggested the New
World Order. The Gulf War was to be the new government's first
campaign or the war which made the world realize it was time for a
massive restructuring of international relations.

This got me thinking, the only admirable thing Saddam has done has
been to resist global government. To be sure, he has done it in an
attempt to better tyrannize the Iraqi people, but he has been a thorn
in the side of those who want global governance.

This makes him a perfect enemy for the War With Terror. The War With
Terror is an international struggle against political dissent. See
Defining Victory in the New War.

Individuals or groups no matter where they exist, if they threaten the
current existence of any nation state waging the War With Terror, are
the enemy of every Terror Warrior. The War With Terror has allowed
greater intrusions into the individual freedoms of the freest country
in the world, bringing its record on civil liberties more in line with
that of Europe and China. It has brought a new open cooperation
between governments in a mutual effort to eradicate dissidents from
within every national border.

If only Saddam would get in line, maybe he could keep his control over
Iraq. Remember hillbilly diplomacy, "You're either ‘wit us or again'
us"? But, since Saddam is willing to send Iraqi men to die to protect
his power, America must be prepared for the consequences of being the
aggressor against another nation. America will not have the moral high
ground to condemn any other nation for attacking any other for any
contrived disagreement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, et al can attack
Israel with the same moral authority America will attack Iraq with.
China can attack Taiwan with that same moral authority.

Far from bringing global governance, this attempt by W. to push the
world into his daddy's New World Order could very well lead to the
final world war.